Increasingly Generic/Bland Quality of Broadway Artwork and Show Logos?

the starting point, from the producer's standpoint, is simple: what sells tickets? Pretty artwork, we know, does not. Busy art work does not. Images that catch random attention in the image assault that is the theatre district do. There is also a difference between the function of established images and aborning ones. AKA and the producers who engage them do not need backseat drivers.

yes, darquegk, exactly. Chicken and egg. And the iconic images evolved. These are all "reinforcement" images, designed to keep something known in the public consciousness. Tootsie's artwork, on the other hand, is intended to elicit "Oh wow, did you know Tootsie is on Broadway?" Ditto King Kong etc etc etc. Especially today, in a world of name recognition as the driving motivation for a big chunk of Broadway production, this makes total sense.

The only other one of the last 2 decades that comes quickly to mind, and I think it is more of a New York thing, is Avenue Q.

HogansHero said: "the starting point, from the producer's standpoint, is simple: what sells tickets? Pretty artwork, we know, does not. Busy art work does not. Images that catch random attention in theimage assaultthat is the theatre district do. There is also a difference between the function of established images and aborning ones. AKA and the producers who engage them do not need backseat drivers."

This is demonstrated in the aforementioned artwork of Dewynters' work in the 80's. Cats, Phantom, Les Miz, Miss Saigon all had simple but eye-catching designs (and if you ever watch the Making of Miss Saigon, they go through a bunch of showcards with the proposed artwork, most of which was awful). They represented the show well, without being obnoxious. Even Sunset Boulevards design was brilliantly simple.

The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars.

to repeat (really necessary?) all of these images are designed to trigger sales to different demographics, for a short run show.

AC126748 said: "The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars."

Also AKA, I believe.

The other element (aside from appealing to multiple demographics with distinct yet simple imagery) is the licensing aspect. Most of the major theatrical licensing companies also offer the option to license the original promotional art for your production. So if I want to license A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, I can pay an additional fee to get the rights to use the graphic of the falling piano with the show name on it. I plug in my show information (theater location, dates, etc.) and I get to reuse the assets designed to get eyes on the show. These licensing deals usually use the same typography if not the same imagery, but tend to avoid actor-specific artwork like the iconic Tracy Turnblad half-face Hairspray poster. In the Heights is a hilarious exception as you, too, can have Lin-Manuel Miranda raising his arm to the sky as part of your production's marketing campaign.

Anyway, depending on the company, these designs are licensed ala carte (pick just the poster, the print ad, web ads) or all-in-one. Rates vary depending on what you want, but all-in-one packages to just get everything start around $400. A show that's licensed a lot (like Beauty and the Beast) has an additional revenue source from simpler logos that look slick and present a simple memorable image. Tootsie with a wig for the dot on the eye might not look like much, but it's a clean design that can be used by any future production very easily.

The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars.

Jones especially looks like she was cut and paste from a step & repeat opening red carpet.

I'll try once more. "Beautiful" is barely a part of the equation. The art department does its job creating a range of images, but are not involved in the strategic choice, which is reached by the account folks and the producers. "Impactful" is, or at least should be, the driving adjective,

A design is only "bad" if it fails at its job to get people's attention and to make them interested in seeing the show. It's like how better designed subway map that is used in almost every major city in the world with a subway system was rejected by New Yorkers and we're still using the "uglier" version. A good map is one that people will use. So in this case, this design is only meant to make people want to see the show. Obviously, the biggest selling point to Tootsie is that people remember the film and would want to see it a musical version of it.